Loading [Contrib]/a11y/accessibility-menu.js
Skip to main content
null
Findings
  • Menu
  • Articles
    • Energy Findings
    • Resilience Findings
    • Safety Findings
    • Transport Findings
    • Urban Findings
    • All
  • For Authors
  • Editorial Board
  • About
  • Blog
  • covid-19
  • search

RSS Feed

Enter the URL below into your favorite RSS reader.

http://localhost:25298/feed
Transport Findings
December 03, 2024 AEST

A Review of Activity-based Disaggregate Travel Demand Models

Negar Rezvany, Marija Kukic, Michel Bierlaire,
Activity-based modelsSynthetic populationMulti-personMulti-periodliterature reviewtravel behavioragent-based models
Copyright Logoccby-sa-4.0 • https://doi.org/10.32866/001c.125431
Findings
Rezvany, Negar, Marija Kukic, and Michel Bierlaire. 2024. “A Review of Activity-Based Disaggregate Travel Demand Models.” Findings, December. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.32866/​001c.125431.
Save article as...▾
Download all (1)
  • Fig. 1. Trend of publications on ABMs and Synthetic Population over time
    Download

Sorry, something went wrong. Please try again.

If this problem reoccurs, please contact Scholastica Support

Error message:

undefined

View more stats

Abstract

This paper reviews the literature on disaggregated travel demand models from a choice perspective, focusing on activity-based models (ABMs) and synthetic population generators as example approaches to capture these choice dimensions. We discuss the links between these models and elaborate on their integration, emphasizing how advanced population synthesis can address gaps in ABMs. The importance of incorporating multi-person and multi-period contexts to more accurately represent travel behavior is highlighted. Further advances aimed at improving the practical application of these models are also discussed.

1. Questions

We approach disaggregate travel demand models from a choice perspective, considering the short-term to long-term decisions of individuals. Activity-based models (ABMs) and synthetic population generation are example approaches to model these choice dimensions. Both models rely on creating agents but differ in handling activity-travel decisions. In ABMs, individuals or households are decision-making agents in activity scheduling. Population synthesis generates realistic datasets that represent the demographic and socio-economic characteristics of these agents within a target population, which are then used in ABMs to simulate the daily activities and travel behavior of individuals. Thus, the functionality of ABMs depends on the structure of the synthetic population (Board and National Academies of Sciences 2014). These models offer a framework for understanding how people make decisions about their activities and travel, considering the interactions among multiple individuals and the evolution of their behaviors over time.

This paper reviews the literature on ABMs and synthetic population generation, focusing on the following questions:

  1. What are the short- and long-term choice dimensions of activity-travel decisions, and which approaches address them?

  2. What are the individual- and multi-person level activity-travel choice dimensions, and what advancements capture them?

  3. How can advanced population synthesis address fundamental gaps in ABMs?

2. Methods

This paper follows the systematic literature review methodology by Wee and Banister (2016), which includes defining the review purpose, selecting the database, and determining keywords. We chose Google Scholar to conduct a comparative analysis of publications on ABMs and synthetic populations, spanning from 1980, the approximate time ABMs first emerged, to the present. We conducted two searches: one with “activity-based models”, and another with “synthetic populations” and “transportation”. Figure 1 illustrates similar growth trends in both fields, particularly from 2000 to 2010, as interest in ABMs has increased focus on synthetic population methods. To refine our review, we target studies addressing two issues:

  1. treatment of inter-personal relationships (e.g., intra-household), and

  2. correlations over time (e.g., multi-day, dynamic models).

Fig. 1
Fig. 1.Trend of publications on ABMs and Synthetic Population over time

Table 1 classifies ABMs and synthetic population publications based on these axes. Most research examines individuals at a single point, with fewer studies analyzing households over time. This motivates our exploration of ABMs and synthetic population integration for multi-period and multi-person modeling.

Table 1.Comparison of number of publications in ABMs\Synthetic population communities categorized by modeling decisions
Single-moment Multi-period
Individuals 6370 \ 3060 1980 \ 1130
Multi-person 2770 \ 2340 76 \ 48

3. Findings

ABMs, rooted in behavioral theories, address the limitations of traditional trip-based models by considering the interdependence of trips. They focus on short-term decisions that are influenced by individual preferences, social influence, and context-specific constraints (e.g., activity time windows, transport mode availability, and time budgets). Short-term choice dimensions are decisions on activity participation, scheduling, transport mode, and itinerary selection (Mcnally and Rindt 2007; Castiglione, Bradley, and Gliebe 2014; Davidson, Vovsha, and Freedman 2014). Limited longitudinal data challenges ABMs in modeling multi-period dynamics, leading to an overemphasis on past behaviors without adequately considering future planning (Cirillo and Axhausen 2010; W. Zhang et al. 2021). Given data limitations, deriving indicators from single-day data is considered, however, it risks biases due to behavioral assumptions (Arentze, Ettema, and Timmermans 2011; Hilgert et al. 2017). Moreover, most multi-day ABM studies focus on specific aspects of scheduling, such as activity generation (Nurul Habib and Miller 2008; Arentze, Ettema, and Timmermans 2011), neglecting a comprehensive examination of the entire scheduling process (i.e., activity generation, timing, sequence, location choice, and mode choice).

Synthetic data projection methods can make long-term decision information available by evolving populations over time, using various methods such as static projection (Lomax et al. 2022), dynamic projection (Geard et al. 2013), and resampling (Prédhumeau and Manley 2023). Examples of long-term decisions are spatial (e.g., residential location), lifestyle (e.g., household composition), and mobility choices (e.g., vehicle ownership). However, these methods often struggle with biases and non-representativeness due to their reliance on past trends, limiting their effectiveness in forecasting transport demand across multiple periods. Additionally, the focus on individual evolution rather than household dynamics can further reduce the accuracy of these projections.

Given the importance of household interactions in travel behavior, recent ABMs literature has emphasized the need to incorporate group decision-making processes within households. This includes dividing maintenance responsibilities, escort duties, joint activity participation, and managing resources like vehicle allocation, which requires coordinated scheduling decisions. Research has explored group decision-making in areas such as activity generation (Arentze and Timmermans 2009; Bradley and Vovsha 2005), time allocation (J. Zhang and Fujiwara 2006), and sequential household-level activity pattern generation (Bhat et al. 2013). For instance, Household Activity Pattern Problem (HAPP) models (Recker 1995) integrate operations research techniques into household activity scheduling. Rezvany, Bierlaire, and Hillel (2023) use a mathematical programming algorithm to simulate multiple intra-household interaction dimensions within the same scheduling framework, capturing the coordination of the activity scheduling decisions among all household members. Table 2 summarizes example ABMs in the literature addressing individuals to multi-person spanning from single-day to multi-day analysis.

Table 2.An overview of existing ABMs spanning from single- to multi-person and period
Single-day Multi-period
Individuals
(Pougala, Hillel, and Bierlaire 2023) (Cho, Chung, and Kim 2023)
(Habib and Hui 2017) (Hilgert et al. 2017)
(Nurul Habib and Miller 2009) (Cirillo and Axhausen 2010)
(Bhat 2005) (Nurul Habib and Miller 2008)
(Bhat et al. 2004)
(Bowman 1995)
Multi-person
(Rezvany, Bierlaire, and Hillel 2023) (Ho and Mulley 2013)
(Lai et al. 2019) (Kang and Scott 2010)
(Bernardo and Hoklas 2015) (Arentze and Timmermans 2009)
(Bhat et al. 2013)
(J. Zhang and Fujiwara 2006)
(Recker 1995)

In parallel, the field of synthetic population generation has shifted from individual- (Beckman, Baggerly, and McKay 1996; Abraham, Stefan, and Hunt 2012; Barthelemy and Toint 2013; Farooq et al. 2013; Lederrey, Hillel, and Bierlaire 2022) to household-centered (Ye et al. 2009; Kukic, Li, and Bierlaire 2024; Aemmer and MacKenzie 2022) generation, creating multi-level hierarchical data that better represent inter-individual interactions within households. However, existing datasets often overlook interpersonal relationships within social groups such as educational and work networks (Jiang et al. 2022).

A notable gap exists between the synthetic population and ABMs communities. While synthetic data is intended to support ABMs (Board and National Academies of Sciences 2014), most ABMs studies rely on real data (Tajaddini et al. 2020). This limited use may stem from:

  1. lack of consensus on generation algorithms, which vary based on resources and data (Yaméogo et al. 2021), limiting reproducibility (Ramadan and Sisiopiku 2019);

  2. unclear data requirements (e.g., socio-demographics only or full activity chains?); and

  3. questions about synthetic data reliability, as validation often covers marginals only (Kukic, Li, and Bierlaire 2024).

Although open-source synthetic data is promoted (Hörl and Balac 2021), different, arbitrarily chosen algorithms are often used at each generation stage, impacting data quality. For instance, IPF is used to generate socio-demographics despite available alternatives addressing IPF’s limitations (Sun and Erath 2015; Farooq et al. 2013; Aemmer and MacKenzie 2022; Lederrey, Hillel, and Bierlaire 2022). Thus, to advance research in multi-person and multi-period contexts, better integration of synthetic population generation methods with ABMs is needed (Ramadan and Sisiopiku 2019; Garrido et al. 2020).

Current research lacks methods for generating multi-period synthetic populations that include social group information, crucial for developing sophisticated ABMs that simulate multi-day scheduling with interpersonal interactions. Challenges persist in capturing the heterogeneous nature of intra-household dynamics and ensuring consistency of choices across household members. For multi-period ABMs, studying scheduling correlations from forward-looking behavior, past experiences, and latent behaviors should be considered. ABMs with interactions face challenges in calibrating due to the combinatorial size of choice sets, requiring consistent choice set generation techniques (Rezvany, Hillel, and Bierlaire 2024). The increased complexity and dimensionality in multi-person and multi-period synthetic populations and ABMs pose challenges in computational time, data representativity, and constraint management. Decomposition methods offer potential solutions to handle this complexity.

In summary, integrating ABMs and synthetic populations, while considering interpersonal interactions over multiple time periods, is an interesting research avenue with a high potential for contribution.


Credit authorship contribution statement

Negar Rezvany: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Methodology, Investigation, Writing - original draft, Visualization, Project administration. Marija Kukic: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Methodology, Investigation, Writing – original draft, Visualization, Project administration. Michel Bierlaire: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Project administration, Writing – review & editing.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Janody Pougala for her valuable insights on the literature review for multi-period activity-based models.

Submitted: July 08, 2024 AEST

Accepted: November 02, 2024 AEST

References

Abraham, John E., Kevin J Stefan, and John Douglas Hunt. 2012. “Population Synthesis Using Combinatorial Optimization at Multiple Levels.” In 91st Annu. Meet. Transp. Res. Board. Washington, DC, USA.
Google Scholar
Aemmer, Zack, and Don MacKenzie. 2022. “Generative Population Synthesis for Joint Household and Individual Characteristics.” Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 96:101852. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.compenvurbsys.2022.101852.
Google Scholar
Arentze, Theo A., Dick Ettema, and Harry J. P. Timmermans. 2011. “Estimating a Model of Dynamic Activity Generation Based on One-Day Observations: Method and Results.” Transp. Res. Part B Methodol. 45 (2): 447–60. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.trb.2010.07.005.
Google Scholar
Arentze, Theo A., and Harry J. P. Timmermans. 2009. “A Need-Based Model of Multi-Day, Multi-Person Activity Generation.” Transp. Res. Part B Methodol. 43 (2): 251–65. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.trb.2008.05.007.
Google Scholar
Barthelemy, J., and Philippe L. Toint. 2013. “Synthetic Population Generation without a Sample.” Transportation Science 47 (2): 266–79. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1287/​trsc.1120.0408.
Google Scholar
Beckman, Richard J., Keith A. Baggerly, and Michael D. McKay. 1996. “Creating Synthetic Baseline Populations.” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 30 (6): 415–29. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​0965-8564(96)00004-3.
Google Scholar
Bernardo, Christina, and Megan Hoklas. 2015. “An Empirical Investigation into the Time-Use and Activity Patterns of Dual-Earner Couples With and Without Young Children Data-Supported Transportation Operations & Planning Center.”
Bhat, Chandra R. 2005. “A Multiple Discrete-Continuous Extreme Value Model: Formulation and Application to Discretionary Time-Use Decisions.” Transp. Res. Part B Methodol. 39 (8): 679–707. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.trb.2004.08.003.
Google Scholar
Bhat, Chandra R., Konstadinos G. Goulias, Ram M. Pendyala, Rajesh Paleti, Raghuprasad Sidharthan, Laura Schmitt, and Hsi Hwa Hu. 2013. “A Household-Level Activity Pattern Generation Model with an Application for Southern California.” Transportation (Amst). 40 (5): 1063–86. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1007/​s11116-013-9452-y.
Google Scholar
Bhat, Chandra R, Jessica Y Guo, Sivaramakrishnan Srinivasan, and Aruna Sivakumar. 2004. “Comprehensive Econometric Microsimulator for Daily Activity-Travel Patterns.” Transp. Res. Rec. 1894 (1): 57–66. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.3141/​1894-07.
Google Scholar
Board, Transportation Research, and Engineering National Academies of Sciences. 2014. Activity-Based Travel Demand Models: A Primer. Edited by Joe Castiglione, Mark Bradley, and John Gliebe. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.17226/​22357.
Google Scholar
Bowman, John Lawrence. 1995. “Activity Based Travel Demand Model System with Daily Activity Schedules.” PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Bradley, Mark, and Peter Vovsha. 2005. “A Model for Joint Choice of Daily Activity Pattern Types of Household Members.” Transportation (Amst). 32 (5): 545–71. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1007/​s11116-005-5761-0.
Google Scholar
Castiglione, Joe, Mark Bradley, and John Gliebe. 2014. Activity-Based Travel Demand Models: A Primer. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.17226/​22357.
Google Scholar
Cho, Woo Keol, Jin Hyuk Chung, and Jinhee Kim. 2023. “Need-Based Approach for Modeling Multiday Activity Participation Patterns and Identifying the Impact of Activity/Travel Conditions.” Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 172 (March): 103665. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.tra.2023.103665.
Google Scholar
Cirillo, Cinzia, and Kay W. Axhausen. 2010. “Dynamic Model of Activity-Type Choice and Scheduling.” Transportation (Amst). 37 (1): 15–38. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1007/​s11116-009-9218-8.
Google Scholar
Davidson, Bill, Peter Vovsha, and Joel Freedman. 2014. “New Advancements in Activity-Based Models.” ATRF 2011 - 34th Australas. Transp. Res. Forum, 1–20.
Google Scholar
Farooq, Bilal, Michel Bierlaire, Ricardo Hurtubia, and Gunnar Flötteröd. 2013. “Simulation Based Population Synthesis.” Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 58. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.trb.2013.09.012.
Google Scholar
Garrido, Sergio, Stanislav S. Borysov, Francisco C. Pereira, and Jeppe Rich. 2020. “Prediction of Rare Feature Combinations in Population Synthesis: Application of Deep Generative Modelling.” Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 120:102787.
Google Scholar
Geard, Nicholas, James M McCaw, Alan Dorin, Kevin B Korb, and Jodie McVernon. 2013. “Synthetic Population Dynamics: A Model of Household Demography.” Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 16 (1): 8. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.18564/​jasss.2098.
Google Scholar
Habib, Khandker M.Nurul, and Vivian Hui. 2017. “An Activity-Based Approach of Investigating Travel Behaviour of Older People.” Transportation (Amst). 44 (3): 555–73. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1007/​s11116-015-9667-1.
Google Scholar
Hilgert, Tim, Michael Heilig, Martin Kagerbauer, and Peter Vortisch. 2017. “Modeling Week Activity Schedules for Travel Demand Models.” Transp. Res. Rec. 2666 (1): 69–77. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.3141/​2666-08.
Google Scholar
Ho, Chinh, and Corinne Mulley. 2013. “Tour-Based Mode Choice of Joint Household Travel Patterns on Weekend and Weekday.” Transportation (Amst). 40 (4): 789–811. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1007/​s11116-013-9479-0.
Google Scholar
Hörl, Sebastian, and Milos Balac. 2021. “Synthetic Population and Travel Demand for Paris and Île-de-France Based on Open and Publicly Available Data.” Transportation Research Part C Emerging Technologies 130 (July):103291. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.trc.2021.103291.
Google Scholar
Jiang, Na, Andrew T. Crooks, Hamdi Kavak, Annetta Burger, and William G. Kennedy. 2022. “A Method to Create a Synthetic Population with Social Networks for Geographically-Explicit Agent-Based Models.” Computational Urban Science 2 (1): 7. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1007/​s43762-022-00034-1.
Google Scholar
Kang, Hejun, and Darren M. Scott. 2010. “Exploring Day-to-Day Variability in Time Use for Household Members.” Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 44 (8): 609–19. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.tra.2010.04.002.
Google Scholar
Kukic, Marija, Xinling Li, and Michel Bierlaire. 2024. “One-Step Gibbs Sampling for the Generation of Synthetic Households.” Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 166:104770. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.trc.2024.104770.
Google Scholar
Lai, Xinjun, William H. K. Lam, Junbiao Su, and Hui Fu. 2019. “Modelling Intra-Household Interactions in Time-Use and Activity Patterns of Retired and Dual-Earner Couples.” Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 126:172–94. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.tra.2019.05.007.
Google Scholar
Lederrey, Gael, Tim Hillel, and Michel Bierlaire. 2022. “DATGAN: Integrating Expert Knowledge into Deep Learning for Synthetic Tabular Data.” arXiv Preprint arXiv:2203.03489. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.48550/​arXiv.2203.03489.
Google Scholar
Lomax, Nik, Andrew Smith, Luke Archer, Alistair Ford, and James Virgo. 2022. “An Open‐source Model for Projecting Small Area Demographic and Land‐use Change.” Geographical Analysis 54. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1111/​gean.12320.
Google Scholar
Mcnally, Michael G, and Craig R Rindt. 2007. “The Activity-Based Approach.” In Handb. Transp. Model., 55–73.
Google Scholar
Nurul Habib, Khandker M., and Eric J. Miller. 2008. “Modelling Daily Activity Program Generation Considering Within-Day and Day-to-Day Dynamics in Activity-Travel Behaviour.” Transportation (Amst). 35 (4): 467–84. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1007/​s11116-008-9166-8.
Google Scholar
———. 2009. “Modelling Activity Generation: A Utility-Based Model for Activity-Agenda Formation.” Transportmetrica 5 (1): 3–23. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1080/​18128600802591384.
Google Scholar
Pougala, Janody, Tim Hillel, and Michel Bierlaire. 2023. “OASIS: Optimisation-Based Activity Scheduling with Integrated Simultaneous Choice Dimensions.” Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 155:104291. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.trc.2023.104291.
Google Scholar
Prédhumeau, Manon, and Ed Manley. 2023. “A Synthetic Population for Agent Based Modelling in Canada.” Scientific Data 10. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1038/​s41597-023-02030-4.
Google Scholar
Ramadan, Ossama, and Virginia Sisiopiku. 2019. “A Critical Review on Population Synthesis for Activity- and Agent-Based Transportation Models.” In Transp. Syst. Anal. Assess.
Google Scholar
Recker, W. W. 1995. “The Household Activity Pattern Problem: General Formulation and Solution.” Transp. Res. Part B 29 (1): 61–77. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​0191-2615(94)00023-S.
Google Scholar
Rezvany, Negar, Michel Bierlaire, and Tim Hillel. 2023. “Simulating Intra-Household Interactions for in- and out-of-Home Activity Scheduling.” Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 157. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.trc.2023.104362.
Google Scholar
Rezvany, Negar, Tim Hillel, and Michel Bierlaire. 2024. “Household-Level Choice-Set Generation and Parameter Estimation in Activity-Based Models.” Technical Report 240810. Lausanne, Switzerland: Transport and Mobility Laboratory, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne.
Sun, Lijun, and Alexander Erath. 2015. “A Bayesian Network Approach for Population Synthesis.” Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 61:49–62. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.trc.2015.10.010.
Google Scholar
Tajaddini, Atousa, Geoffrey Rose, Kara Kockelman, and Hai Vu. 2020. “Recent Progress in Activity-Based Travel Demand Modeling: Rising Data and Applicability.” In . https:/​/​doi.org/​10.5772/​intechopen.93827.
Google Scholar
Wee, Bert Van, and David Banister. 2016. “How to Write a Literature Review Paper?” Transport Reviews 36 (2): 278–88. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1080/​01441647.2015.1065456.
Google Scholar
Yaméogo, Boyam Fabrice, Pascal Gastineau, Pierre Hankach, and Pierre-Olivier Vandanjon. 2021. “Comparing Methods for Generating a Two-Layered Synthetic Population.” Transportation Research Record 2675 (1): 136–47.
Google Scholar
Ye, Xin, Karthik Konduri, Ram M Pendyala, Bhargava Sana, and Paul Waddell. 2009. “A Methodology to Match Distributions of Both Household and Person Attributes in the Generation of Synthetic Populations.” In 88th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board. Washington, DC, USA.
Google Scholar
Zhang, Junyi, and Akimasa Fujiwara. 2006. “Representing Household Time Allocation Behavior by Endogenously Incorporating Diverse Intra-Household Interactions: A Case Study in the Context of Elderly Couples.” Transp. Res. Part B Methodol. 40 (1): 54–74. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.trb.2005.01.004.
Google Scholar
Zhang, Wenjia, Chunhan Ji, Hao Yu, Yi Zhao, and Yanwei Chai. 2021. “Interpersonal and Intrapersonal Variabilities in Daily Activity-Travel Patterns: A Networked Spatiotemporal Analysis.” ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information 10 (3). https:/​/​doi.org/​10.3390/​ijgi10030148.
Google Scholar

This website uses cookies

We use cookies to enhance your experience and support COUNTER Metrics for transparent reporting of readership statistics. Cookie data is not sold to third parties or used for marketing purposes.

Powered by Scholastica, the modern academic journal management system